Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 34531 OF 2025(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. B LATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O RAMEGOWDA B N
2. PADMA T AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O NAGARAJA H M
3. RAGHAVENDRA B S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O B M SHANKAR
4. SHYAMALA N AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O S RAMAMOHAN
5. GAYATHRI S AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O S V RAMGOPAL
6. HEMALATHA R B AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE BASANAGOUDA
7. K R GANGADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH
8. DHANA LAKSHMI S AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O PRAKASH
9. SAVITHA DEVI T.E AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O MAILARAPPA K SHAVI
10. NATARAJA S N AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE NAGARAJ S
11. J AROKIANATHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O JOSEPH
12. GIRIDHARA M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O MANJUNATHA
13. MANJUNATHA Y H AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE K HUCHEGOWDA
14. R SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH
15. FAKIRAPPA SALI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O MAHADEVAPPA SALI
16. DEVIRI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O NAGARAJ S
17. N NAGASHREE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O BHARATHKUMAR S
18. SIDDANAGOWDA N A AGED BOUT 48 YEARS S/O A NAGESHAPPA
19. N SUKANYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O K RAMU
20. RAMESH K AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O KRISHNAMURTHY
21. KARUNAKARA K S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SANJEEVA BHANDARI
22. DORESWAMY A N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
23. SAVITHA R S AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O NARENDRA BABU N
24. REVATHI M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAMESH K
25. SAMPOORNA J K AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O GIRIS B MANGANNAVAR
26. BHARATHI S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH
27. SATISH REDDY K V AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY
28. B S NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O B SUBRAMANYAM
29. K SHANTHALA NAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O SHRIDHAR NAIK
30. THEJASHWINI S N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O N MANJUNATH
31. VANISHREE V AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O DEVARAJU
32. GEETHA R C AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O GIRISH K
33. YASHAVANTH G M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE GOPAL RAO K
34. ROOPA S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O ASHWATH K R
35. SOWMYA RANI J AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SURESH B K
36. BINDU R AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SATISH BABU S
ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AS COURT OFFICERS, AT THE PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU-560001.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
Sd/-
(H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM/-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING INTIMATION BEARING NO. HCE 873/2013 (SO & CO) DATED: 25.04.2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND CONTRARY TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SERVICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND RECRUITMENT RULES 1973 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the intimation dated 25.04.2025 vide Annexure-A issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, to the petitioners. By the said intimation it was communicated that, as per the High Court of Karnataka (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (for short, ‘1973 Rules’), promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar shall initially be made only from the feeder cadre of Section Officers until their strength in the cadre of Assistant Registrars reaches 35 posts and that, upon achieving the ratio of 2:1, i.e., 35 posts from the cadre of Section Officers and 18 posts from the cadre of Court Officers, future promotions shall be maintained in the same proportion in the cadre strength. Accordingly, their representations with respect to up-gradation of posts have been rejected.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Court Officers in the respondent establishment. As per the 1973 Rules, the next promotional avenue for Court Officers is to the post of Assistant Registrar. The said post is to be filled by promotion from two feeder cadres, namely, Section Officers and Court Officers, in the ratio of 2:1, respectively.
Since the petitioners were not being considered for promotion, they submitted a representation dated 30.10.2014 vide Annexure-D1, seeking up-gradation of their pay scale on par with that of Assistant Registrars by re-designating them as Court Masters. They also sought up-gradation of the pay scale of Assistant Court Officers to the next higher level by re-designating them as Assistant Court Masters. Subsequently, similar representations dated 04.03.2020, 24.01.2022, 20.06.2023 and 06.08.2024 vide Annexures D2, D3, D4 and E were also submitted.
By the impugned intimation dated 25.04.2025 vide Annexure-A, their request has been rejected. It was also stated that promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar would be governed by cadre strength henceforth. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
Sri Prithveesh M.K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the petitioners sought up-gradation and re-designation of the posts of Court Officers and the Assistant Court Officers, and also sought re- fixation of the ratio for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar through multiple representations. Contrary to their requests, the impugned intimation vide Annexure-A has been issued.
(ii) Secondly, the Section Officers had sought rectification of the alleged anomaly in the ratio for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrars. The operative portion of Annexure-A states that their representations have been rejected. However, the body of the intimation letter suggests that their request was considered favourably. He contends that the impugned order cannot simultaneously grant relief and reject the representation.
(iii) Thirdly, as per Rule 7 of the 1973 Rules, recruitment to a post or class of posts is by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadres of Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1. The ratio must therefore apply to the vacancies existing at the time of appointment and not to the overall cadre strength. Therefore, there is
